Live data from Hacker News

The Dropbox hack is real

troyhunt.com

151–160 of 557 posts

Re: The Dropbox hack is real

#151
post #131
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are a company focussing on just one commercial product. Or: "they are a company depending on just one commercial product". Doesn't look that good anymore hm? Try keepass for excample. It's local too and it's open source.

Keepass doesn't even serve it's updates over HTTPS, so who knows what i'm getting. This fact alone make me lose all trust in it's developers.

There have been some articles about automatic KeePass updates being vulnerable. This section clarifies the situation and its resolution.

First of all, we would like to note that KeePass cannot update itself. KeePass does support checking for updates (optional; by downloading a version information file, comparing the available with the installed version number, and displaying a notification if necessary). However, it neither downloads nor installs any new version automatically. Users have to do this manually.

KeePass can be downloaded from many servers (SourceForge with its many mirror servers, FossHub, etc.). In order to make sure that the downloaded file is official, users should check whether the file is digitally signed (Authenticode; all KeePass binaries are signed, including the installer, KeePass.exe and all other EXE and DLL files). The digital signature can be checked using Windows Explorer by right-clicking the file -> 'Properties' -> tab 'Digital Signatures' (the expected signer name is 'Open Source Developer, Dominik Reichl'). When running the installer, the UAC dialog displays the digital signature information, i.e. users who carefully read the UAC dialog do not have to inspect the file properties separately. This is recommended for all users, independent of where you download KeePass from.

The KeePass website links to SourceForge for downloading KeePass. However, even if SourceForge (or the KeePass website) is compromised and serves a malicious download, users who check the digital signature will notice the attack and will not run the malware. Note that HTTPS cannot prevent an attack via a compromise of the download server; checking the digital signature does.

The version information file is downloaded from the KeePass website over HTTP. Thus a man in the middle (someone who can intercept your connection to the KeePass website) could have returned an incorrect version information file, possibly making KeePass display a notification that a new KeePass version is available. However, the next steps (downloading and installing the new version) must be carried out by the user manually, and here users who check the digital signature will notice the attack.

Resolution. In order to prevent a man in the middle from making KeePass display incorrect version information (even though this does not imply a successful attack, see above), the version information file is now digitally signed (using RSA-4096 and SHA-512). KeePass 2.34 and higher only accept such a digitally signed version information file. Furthermore, the version information file is now downloaded over HTTPS.

http://keepass.info/help/kb/sec_issues.html#updsig

Re: The Dropbox hack is real

#152
post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me, it's that 1Password runs locally and doesn't need to phone home, whereas LastPass is "cloud". Also, LastPass being owned by LogMeIn doesn't sit right with me, but that's definitely personal. No idea about Keepass(x), although I found that ecosystem to be confusing, with different apps for different platforms you might accidentally download a rouge one on e.g. your phone. I know, paranoia.

Keepass isn't served over HTTPS. http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2016/06/keepass-vulnerability-l...

http://keepass.info/help/kb/sec_issues.html#updsig

There have been some articles about automatic KeePass updates being vulnerable. This section clarifies the situation and its resolution.

First of all, we would like to note that KeePass cannot update itself. KeePass does support checking for updates (optional; by downloading a version information file, comparing the available with the installed version number, and displaying a notification if necessary). However, it neither downloads nor installs any new version automatically. Users have to do this manually.

KeePass can be downloaded from many servers (SourceForge with its many mirror servers, FossHub, etc.). In order to make sure that the downloaded file is official, users should check whether the file is digitally signed (Authenticode; all KeePass binaries are signed, including the installer, KeePass.exe and all other EXE and DLL files). The digital signature can be checked using Windows Explorer by right-clicking the file -> 'Properties' -> tab 'Digital Signatures' (the expected signer name is 'Open Source Developer, Dominik Reichl'). When running the installer, the UAC dialog displays the digital signature information, i.e. users who carefully read the UAC dialog do not have to inspect the file properties separately. This is recommended for all users, independent of where you download KeePass from.

The KeePass website links to SourceForge for downloading KeePass. However, even if SourceForge (or the KeePass website) is compromised and serves a malicious download, users who check the digital signature will notice the attack and will not run the malware. Note that HTTPS cannot prevent an attack via a compromise of the download server; checking the digital signature does.

The version information file is downloaded from the KeePass website over HTTP. Thus a man in the middle (someone who can intercept your connection to the KeePass website) could have returned an incorrect version information file, possibly making KeePass display a notification that a new KeePass version is available. However, the next steps (downloading and installing the new version) must be carried out by the user manually, and here users who check the digital signature will notice the attack.

Resolution. In order to prevent a man in the middle from making KeePass display incorrect version information (even though this does not imply a successful attack, see above), the version information file is now digitally signed (using RSA-4096 and SHA-512). KeePass 2.34 and higher only accept such a digitally signed version information file. Furthermore, the version information file is now downloaded over HTTPS.

Re: The Dropbox hack is real

#153
post #73
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2FA is a major inconvenience. The login process goes from 1-2 sec to 30sec. Sometimes a lot longer (some 2FA do not seem to think it is critical to send the email or txt msg right away, and even when they do, email servers do not really work real time, and then you have the time it takes to find your phone, unlock, decline twice the iOS update prompt, go to the right app, find the right msg, copy the code, check it i…

> some 2FA do not seem to think it is critical to send the email or txt msg right away, and even when they do, email servers do not really work real time SMS isn't real time either, it's best effort. Mostly (~99,9%) it gets through within seconds, but delays of a few minutes are perfectly acceptable to telcos. As service provider you can't do much about it, either pay through the nose for "priority" delivery (which m…

As a service provider there is something you can do about it: Use well known out-of-band 2FA specs such as TOTP. Those are compatible with Google Authenticator and don't require a phone number, which is a massive inconvenience (not always available, not available in every country, SMS not reliable, requires an ID, not free, leaks personal information to the service provider, ...)

Re: The Dropbox hack is real

#154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or were they really bad salts? Like a hash of the username?

That wouldn't really be a proper salt, although technically it would fulfil the purpose of a salt, which is to prevent lookup tables being used.

Oh I agree, but I've seen too many "clever" systems which derive the salt from something like the username or another field or fields in the DB.

Just because there is no obvious salt now doesn't mean it's not there. Only Dropbox knows how it worked at this point.

Re: The Dropbox hack is real

#155
post #26

It was pretty obvious the dropbox hack was real several years ago, because lots of spam mail started arriving at my dropbox-unique email almost immediately after the breach. I changed my email to another unique address quickly back then. Unique-per-service email addresses work pretty well as a canary for breaches. Just make sure there is more uniqueness than just the service name to such addresses, or someone could s…

> Unique-per-service email addresses work pretty well as a canary for breaches I do this too, but it taught me everything is breached - the local ambulance service, the local computer store, the local car share, small businesses overseas that I've placed orders with. Some of the big names don't seem to be, which is lucky because otherwise I'd be wondering if it was the ISPs that had been breached. Either large chunks…

Or these places sell / give away your email address?

Re: The Dropbox hack is real

#156
post #137
post #26

It was pretty obvious the dropbox hack was real several years ago, because lots of spam mail started arriving at my dropbox-unique email almost immediately after the breach. I changed my email to another unique address quickly back then. Unique-per-service email addresses work pretty well as a canary for breaches. Just make sure there is more uniqueness than just the service name to such addresses, or someone could s…

unique-per-service email addresses sound indeed interesting. How did you set it up? I am a google apps customer and already have a few 20 aliases in there but having to go through their UI every time I sign up seems very tiresome. Can I create a wildcard email in the terms of service-*@bar.com being a alias of email foo@bar.com? Do you know of a non-selfhosted provider that is able to do that? /EDIT: Looks like fastm…

All google email addresses will accept

yourusername+anything@gmail.com

This also works on google apps hosted email domains. You can then use that as part of a filter if you start getting spam to it.

Re: The Dropbox hack is real

#157
post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

unique-per-service email addresses sound indeed interesting. How did you set it up? I am a google apps customer and already have a few 20 aliases in there but having to go through their UI every time I sign up seems very tiresome. Can I create a wildcard email in the terms of service-*@bar.com being a alias of email foo@bar.com? Do you know of a non-selfhosted provider that is able to do that? /EDIT: Looks like fastm…

With Google Mail (and Apps) anything after a + in the first part of the address is ignored, so foo+dropbox@gmail.com would be routed to foo@gmail.com. That's the easiest way to do it that I know of. No need for managing separate aliases.

A lot of website purposely remove the part after the plus to avoid multiple sign ups with the same email, but different label.

Plus you can't completely shut down a label. You could route it into the trash but it will still end up in your email account.

Re: The Dropbox hack is real

#158
post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

unique-per-service email addresses sound indeed interesting. How did you set it up? I am a google apps customer and already have a few 20 aliases in there but having to go through their UI every time I sign up seems very tiresome. Can I create a wildcard email in the terms of service-*@bar.com being a alias of email foo@bar.com? Do you know of a non-selfhosted provider that is able to do that? /EDIT: Looks like fastm…

With Google Mail (and Apps) anything after a + in the first part of the address is ignored, so foo+dropbox@gmail.com would be routed to foo@gmail.com. That's the easiest way to do it that I know of. No need for managing separate aliases.

Whilst great info, unfortunately most of the sites that one would actually try to use this on don't accept addresses containing a "+" as valid.

Another Google Mail trick is to use periods. Not as useful as the +, but for those sites that don't accept +, one can usually add in a few extra periods to place sites into buckets (multiple adjacent periods don't work).

m.y.e.m.a.i.l@example.com

Re: The Dropbox hack is real

#159
post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

unique-per-service email addresses sound indeed interesting. How did you set it up? I am a google apps customer and already have a few 20 aliases in there but having to go through their UI every time I sign up seems very tiresome. Can I create a wildcard email in the terms of service-*@bar.com being a alias of email foo@bar.com? Do you know of a non-selfhosted provider that is able to do that? /EDIT: Looks like fastm…

For gmail, if you have someone@gmail.com, you can just append +anything to your address like this: someone+anything@gmail.com. It will still end up in your mailbox without having to set up anything. See https://gmail.googleblog.com/2008/03/2-hidden-ways-to-get-mo... I would assume that google apps version of gmail offers something similar.

Just tested this with my google apps account and it works there, too.
Post reply on HN